The jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate First Class to release the seized property on interim custody during the pendency of investigation or trial should not be restricted unless specifically provided for in the Act.

Headnote:
Seized Vehicle - Criminal Revision - Madhya Pradesh Gowansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004, Madhya Pradesh Krashak Pashu Parishan Adhiniyam, Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 4, 6, 9 of Act of 2004, 6(a), 6(b), 1, 10, 11 of Krashak Pashu Parishan Adhiniyam, 3/181, 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act
Fact of the Case:

The police seized a vehicle along with cattles being transported in a cruel manner. The petitioner sought release of the seized vehicle, but the application was rejected by the trial Court and the Criminal Revision was also dismissed. The petitioner appealed against the rejection.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the lower courts erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for interim custody of the vehicle. It concluded that the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate First Class is not ousted from releasing the seized vehicle on interim custody as there is no restriction in the Act to do so.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the petitioner's application for interim custody of the seized vehicle based on the likelihood of confiscation proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the lower courts' rejection based on the likelihood of confiscation proceedings was not sufficient, especially considering that the trial of both the offences was pending and the petitioner had not been convicted for any offences under the Act of 2004.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were set aside, and the application for release of the vehicle was allowed. The respondents were directed to release the seized vehicle on the petitioner's furnishing adequate security, with the condition that the petitioner shall not sell or dispose of the vehicle during the trial.

ORDER : – The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 29-10-2021 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Criminal Revision No. 23/2021, whereby the revision of the petitioner for releasing the seized vehicle on interim custody was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29-8-2021 police got discreet information from the informer regarding illegal transportation of cattles. Police party reached on the spot and intercepted the pickup vehicle bearing Registration No. MP-14-GC-1911 and found that seven cattles being transported in very cruel manner, therefore, police seized the vehicle on the spot along with the cattles and FIR was also registered against the owner of the vehicle/present petitioner which was seized in connection with Crime No. 471/2021 registered at P.S. Y. D. Nagar, Mandsaur for the offences under section 4, 6, 9 of Madhya Pradesh Gowansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 (for short “Act of 2004”) and sections 6(a), 6(b), 1, 10, 11 of Madhya Pradesh Krashak Pashu Parishan Adhiniyam and sections 3/181, 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act.

3. During the pendency of the investigation, the petitioner had preferred an application under sections 451 and 457 of Criminal Procedure Code for release of the seized vehicle. The said application was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 2-9-2021 on the ground that the seized vehicle can be used again by the petitioner and confiscation proceeding are likely to be initiated therefore, vehicle cannot be released. Thereafter, a Criminal Revision was preferred against the order of JMFC, but the said revision was also dismissed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur vide order dated 29-10-2021 giving reference to the order of JMFC and also taking note of the fact that petitioner misused the seized vehicle, therefore, vehicle cannot be released on interim custody.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the seized vehicle is lying in the open area in the police station and there is no proper arrangement for its care, therefore, his vehicle will be damaged. He further submits that the petitioner has never been convicted for any offence of similar nature, trial of both the matters are still pending, Collector Mandsaur has not given any intimation to the concerned Magistrate regarding initiation of confiscation proceedings of the aforesaid vehicle, therefore, the Courts below have committed an error in rejecting the petitioner’s application filed under sections 451 and 457 of Criminal Procedure Code for the interim custody of the vehicle. He has also submitted that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle in question.

5. Per contra, learned PL for the respondent/State opposes the prayer by contending that the vehicle in question was again used for illegal transportation of the cattles, therefore, no ground is available to handover the said vehicle to the present petitioner.

6. After hearing the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and to advert such contention, the relevant provision of the Act of 2004 is required to be seen.

7. As per section 11(5) of the Adhiniyam, 2004, it is clear that in case of any violation of section 4, 5, 6-A and 6-B, the Police Authorities is empowered to seize the vehicle or cow progeny and beef. The District Magistrate is having power to confiscate the same in a manner prescribed under Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules of 2012, which deals, confiscation, and appeal are relevant, however, it is reproduced as under : –

Rule 4. Confiscation by District Magistrate. – In case of any violation of section 4, 5, 6, 6-A and 6-B, the police shall be empowered to seize the vehicles, cow progeny and beef as per the provisions of section 100 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974) in following manner : – (i) He shall take possession of the vehicle. (ii) He shall intimate the Veterinary Department to take in custody of the cow-progeny and beef. (iii) The beef of cow-pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document